swan_tower explains my feelings about romantic fiction.
Feb. 17th, 2011 06:52 pmOr rather she explains her feelings, which are (mostly) my feelings. Some quoteable quotes which extend to fanfic very nicely:
THE HORNYPANTS MODEL! Yes. Fie on the hornypants model of romance!
And,
And finally,
Clearly I don't need all of these things going on in every Spuffy fic I read; one of the joys of fic is that the context is already clear to a large extent. But I do dearly love Spuffy set a bit earlier than we see in canon, anytime post-chip through S5, and in that time frame we do pretty much have to start from scratch in terms of how these two people are ending up in a relationship. I have such a time finding fic set in S4-S5 that uses some approach other than, heh, the hornypants model.
I do not, for example, have much interest in the hornypants model of romance, where the connection between the hero and heroine (or hero and hero, heroine and heroine, or other combinations -- this isn't only a heterosexual or even monogamous thing) manifests first and foremost through their hormones.
THE HORNYPANTS MODEL! Yes. Fie on the hornypants model of romance!
And,
My ideal of romance grows out of friendship and partnership, which both fare better when they're given lots of context.
And finally,
I used to say that I like romance when it's the B plot of a novel, rather than the A plot, but lately I've come to realize that's a symptom of my personal inclinations, not the cause. The truth is that when the romance is the B plot, I find it more romantic. [emphasis hers]
The A plot, you see, gives me context and meaning for the romance. It shows me different sides of the characters, so that when they come together I have a better sense of who they are and why they matter to each other.
Clearly I don't need all of these things going on in every Spuffy fic I read; one of the joys of fic is that the context is already clear to a large extent. But I do dearly love Spuffy set a bit earlier than we see in canon, anytime post-chip through S5, and in that time frame we do pretty much have to start from scratch in terms of how these two people are ending up in a relationship. I have such a time finding fic set in S4-S5 that uses some approach other than, heh, the hornypants model.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 03:36 am (UTC)Your icon is so appropriate.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 03:45 am (UTC)Is it not fabulous? I love it. Just further proof that 'pants' is an inherently funny word.
I LOVE MY ICON. I found it in Sherlock fandom (it's a line from someone's fic) and I loved it so much I stole it even though I have nothing to do with Sherlock fandom.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 09:04 am (UTC)Yes, yes, yes, this perfectly describes my feelings on romance plots, too! This analysis could have been written about why Spuffy is more palatable than Bangel- b/c the Spuffy romance is secondary to the characters themselves, whereas with Bangel the only thing that matters is THE (DOOMED) ROMANCE BLARGH.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-20 01:02 am (UTC)Exactly. Which is why Angel's so terribly boring on BtVS! He's only there to serve her story. Whereas Spike is already a fully realized character by the time he gets together with Buffy.
It occurs that they're the only couple on the show for whom that's true, where one or the other people in the couple wasn't introduced almost solely as the love interest. Except Xander/Cordelia, maybe? I do very much like Xander/Cordelia as well. Am I missing someone, here? Robin/Faith, maybe, but they weren't together long enough to bear much weight.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-20 01:11 am (UTC)I love him so much on AtS that it always surprises and annoys me to remember how much I loathe him on BtVS. It's like he's two separate characters.
I like Xander/Cordelia too. I think the Xander ships are the only ones where loving one (X/A) doesn't stop me from fully appreciating the other (X/C). Anya was initially not a love interest (anti-love interest if anything!), and then the writers turned her into one in order to keep her around. Obviously I'm glad she stuck around, but I think the writers chose the easy road and wasted her potential. I also think that out of the love interests (Oz, Riley, etc.), she had the *most potential* to be something other than just a significant other. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2011-02-20 01:13 am (UTC)Definitely agree. It was a real disservice to the character to relegate her to love interest all that time. Ditto Tara, although I don't think Tara's as interesting, at least not as we saw her developed.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-20 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 12:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-20 01:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 03:01 pm (UTC)And I will totally be using "hornypants" in the future. :)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-20 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 03:33 pm (UTC)I always say that I like romance the way Jane Austen writes it, where two people become partners and nothing's sentimental.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-20 01:11 am (UTC)I'm actually not opposed to sentiment so long as it's grounded in real-world considerations. In fact, I love sentiment if the story actually works to earn it, instead of assuming it's all we or the characters care about. I love that stuff.
But yes, a partnership. A romantic relationship as a really deep friendship with other bonus layers. That's what I want to see.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-19 06:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-20 01:14 am (UTC)